Chest Compression Superimposed with Sustained Inflation or 3:1 Compression/Ventilation Ratio During Neonatal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Delivery Room: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current resuscitation guidelines recommend a 3:1 chest compression/ventilation (C:V) ratio, which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. An alternative might be continuous chest compression superimposed with high distending pressure or sustained inflation (CC + SI). Objective: To compare CC + SI with 3:1 C:V during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Methods: MEDLINE (through PubMed), Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov through June 2024. Randomized controlled trials comparing CC + SI with 3:1 C:V during neonatal CPR in the delivery room were included. Data Analysis included Risk of bias was assessed using the Covidence collaboration tool, and results were pooled into a meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. Main outcomes were In-hospital mortality (primary). Time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and air leak (secondary). Results: Two studies were included. The pooled data suggests no difference in infant mortality between CC + SI versus 3:1 C:V during neonatal CPR (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21,1.7, p = 0.33, I2 = 63%). The use of CC + SI during neonatal CPR could result in 182 fewer per 1000 (from 351 fewer to 311 more) infant deaths. The pooled data suggested a significant reduction in time to ROSC with CC + SI versus 3:1 C:V during neonatal CPR (mean difference 115 s (from 184.75 to 45.36 s), p = 0.001, I2 = 26%). Air leak was not different between groups. Conclusions: While in-hospital mortality and air leak were not different between groups, time to ROSC was significantly reduced. A large clinical trial is warranted to assess if CC + SI improves outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".